Should Trump be Impeached <again>

[Felya]

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

222-0... what do you think fringe means? They just arrested the Trump supporter beating cops with a fire extinguisher... let me guess... he lied when he said it’s what Trump told them to do? How many Trump supporters have now been arrested?

[Milchshake]

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

I would explain to you how asymmetrical partisanship has distorted all meaning of your post.

But it would be a waste of time:
Everyone knows that you just spam threads in bad faith.
I doubt you can grasp technical jargon like asymmetrical partisanship.

Thoughts and prayers.

[shimerra]

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

Hope you're not refering to Ukraine where the GAO stated Trump broke the law withholding the funding and subverting the will of Congress, all while he went around the Pentagon who the law said was the ones that got to determine if Ukraine should get the money after the Pentagon said yes without giving reason to congress or his own admin for months. While obstructing the congressional inquiry into why his admin refused to follow said law and distribute those funds. And attacking a legally protected government whistleblower.

But unlike then where Trump hid a diplomatic transcript on a code-word protected server where they aren't ever stored and we were given heavily edited notes and told it was a transcript we have literal video evidence, and testimony of the rioters, that Trump's words incited them.


Why do you support a president inciting a mob to violence to kill/kidnap duly elected members of congress and his own VP? Not surprised that you do. People like you attacked a career military man who had zero issues, a long history of quality and competent service to his adopted nation, and high ethical standards and instead chose to trust a man with a history of lieing, adultery, using the courts to not pay his own staff/contractors, and prone to retaliation.

[Krakan]

What's the "principled" thing for them to do?

To stand by their beliefs and convictions? If you can be so easily intimidated you have no place in a position of power.

[Machismo]

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

Trump could rape a child on live television, and his supporters would still try and blame socialists.

[Felya]

To stand by their beliefs and convictions? If you can be so easily intimidated you have no place in a position of power.

They are standing up to the president of the US, who also happens to be a billionaire. They will not be intimidated by government and billionaires and the global Murdoch conservative media ... deal...

Edit: Who are conservatives standing up to here? Crying liberals in pussy hats?

[draynay]

Everyone knows that you just spam threads in bad faith.

I guess somebody had to fill in for Healing Rain.

[Felya]

I guess somebody had to fill in for Healing Rain.

For some reason my brain associated that poster with Heavenly Sword game... I have no clue why... the game has completely been forgotten...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Sword

[Zan15]

Trump could rape a child on live television, and his supporters would still try and blame socialists.

Nah they would just call it a deep fake!!!

They are already doing that with his last speech

- - - Updated - - -

They are standing up to the president of the US, who also happens to be a billionaire. They will not be intimidated by government and billionaires and the global Murdoch conservative media ... deal...

Edit: Who are conservatives standing up to here? Crying liberals in pussy hats?

wait.
When in the past decade was he an actual billionaire?



- - - Updated - - -

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

really i wish we could get back to the good old days of impeachment because of lying....about a blowjob.....

Do you really want democrats going off republican standards with this president and his history of lying???? Yikes. The house would be impeaching him for decades before they finished.

[cubby]

wait.
When in the past decade was he an actual billionaire?

I cannot wait until his full tax returns and financial records are leaked to the public.

[Zan15]

I cannot wait until his full tax returns and financial records are leaked to the public.

Leaked? they will be part of the first FOIA request once they drag him into court.

fully expect them to be allowed to be made public the first day.

[Stormdash]

I don't personally agree that he incited the mob - certainly not in the legal sense, and you won't find a competent lawyer to argue otherwise.

But I do think that he committed a grave sin on Wednesday for which it's definitely fair to have done with him as President. Specifically, he at first failed to tangibly act to break up the scene at the Capitol and then he also failed to even properly denounce it. His tweets and remarks were shamefully equivocal and amounted to a scold of his own VP and of Congress in general, like "see? See what happens?" He had a duty to quell that riot like he was eager to quell any other riot in the past year, and even when he said that the rioters "do not represent America", he needed to go farther at that point and personally denounce them: "the do not represent me".

And he didn't.

Now, if that had all happened in May of 2020 or January of 2019 impeachment is a totally legit remedy. Seeing as right now we are 115 hours until the end of his term, it's actually incredibly pointless in terms of the cost/benefit. It won't even see any action by the Senate until the only tangible penalty - removal from office - is moot. And that's extra risky because doing it when it already doesn't mean anything is going to invite the terrible mistake of just turning it into a meandering months-long relitigation of every tweet the Democrats didn't like and well past anything to do with the Capitol riot. There's already polling on Impeachment 2: Revenge of Impeachment that aren't so hot for the majority party in 2022 and spending weeks and months of the nation's business trying to remove a man from office that isn't in office is going to compound those problems.

And I also wouldn't take the disqualification clause for granted. If you read the Senate's Article I power there, I'd ask you to consider examples of the offices it might apply to. Judgeships. Embassy posts. Seats on a Cabinet. What do these offices of public trust have in common? They all require the advise and consent of the Senate. You know one that doesn't? The Presidency. The Presidency, mechanically, is intended to be a constitutional check on the Congress, including the Senate; the Senate has no formal role at all in electing the President. A very good case could be made that the DQ clause just doesn't apply to the Presidency because the Senate gets no say over who becomes President the way they do other offices. At the very least, it hasn't been determined by a court, and if they are doing all this to declare him disqualified from running again, they are essentially daring him to do so.

Although, hey, maybe that's the intent. He'd have to run 3rd party, the GOP won't let him seek the nomination again, and that throw the 2024 election pretty easily. But assuming that the goal is for Trump to never be President again, taunting him into running is a pretty weird way to achieve it.

[Edge-]

Now, if that had all happened in May of 2020 or January of 2019 impeachment is a totally legit remedy. Seeing as right now we are 115 hours until the end of his term, it's actually incredibly pointless in terms of the cost/benefit.

Justice should not have a shelf-life.

It won't even see any action by the Senate until the only tangible penalty - removal from office - is moot.

Minus barring him from running again. Minus revoking his $200K annual pension. Minus revoking his $1M annual travel budget. Minus taking a stand for principles and the Constitution.

And that's extra risky because doing it when it already doesn't mean anything is going to invite the terrible mistake of just turning it into a meandering months-long relitigation of every tweet the Democrats didn't like and well past anything to do with the Capitol riot.

Not at all. The articles are pretty specific, not, "We don't like his tweets".

There's already polling on Impeachment 2: Revenge of Impeachment that aren't so hot for the majority party in 2022 and spending weeks and months of the nation's business trying to remove a man from office that isn't in office is going to compound those problems.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...removal-polls/

Majority support for impeachment with a 10+ point split in favor. Independents aren't a majority support, but that's ticked up already and we can likely expect it to tick up more following the trial.

The Presidency, mechanically, is intended to be a constitutional check on the Congress, including the Senate; the Senate has no formal role at all in electing the President.

They don't, but they have a Constitutional role in their ability to remove the president, as a check on the executive branch.

At the very least, it hasn't been determined by a court, and if they are doing all this to declare him disqualified from running again, they are essentially daring him to do so.

He's already stated he wants to, so what's the "dare"?

He'd have to run 3rd party, the GOP won't let him seek the nomination again, and that throw the 2024 election pretty easily.

They can't stop him? Remember, this is the party that had a "proud" neo-nazi run under the Republican banner.

But assuming that the goal is for Trump to never be President again, taunting him into running is a pretty weird way to achieve it.

I think we're well beyond caring what the fuck Trump or his merry band of domestic terrorists think.

[cubby]

I don't personally agree that he incited the mob - certainly not in the legal sense, and you won't find a competent lawyer to argue otherwise.

You won't "a" compentent attorney, you'll find HUNDREDS. For instance, those who work in a little firm call the Department of Justice, and are currently looking into charges against Trump.

[Stormdash]

You won't "a" compentent attorney, you'll find HUNDREDS. For instance, those who work in a little firm call the Department of Justice, and are currently looking into charges against Trump.

I guess they never heard of Brandenburg v Ohio among all those competent attorneys. Here's a very liberal attorney walking through it

Well, what exactly did he tell them to do? Walk down there, he said. Show strength. Take back our country. Words that no doubt gave more than a few people listening the resolve to do what they then did. But it is important to note that he did not say go in the Capitol. He didn’t say get in there and break things, steal things, terrorize members of congress.

It is quite fairly argued that he didn’t say those things because he knew he didn’t have to, that he should have known and probably did know what a powder keg he was lighting with his words. No one can seriously suggest that Trump was unaware of the rhetoric online or the overzealousness of his supporters; he is much too online for that. But again, this is the First Amendment we are analyzing. Combine with the reasonable doubt requirement of a criminal conviction, and prosecuting Trump for his words that day becomes a very tall order, in my opinion.

This is not to say his words and actions — and those of Cruz and Hawley — weren’t repugnant. Contemptible. Deserving of any political and social consequences that may follow. But they probably managed to just tiptoe the line of criminal without crossing. It is reasonable to argue that their rhetoric is to blame for what occurred, but moral blame is not the same as criminal liability. Free speech is not absolute, but it is pretty darn near.

[shimerra]

You won't "a" compentent attorney, you'll find HUNDREDS. For instance, those who work in a little firm call the Department of Justice, and are currently looking into charges against Trump.

I don't' think it's surprising @Stormdash wouldn't find a competent attorney. Since he only seems to find partisan hacks like himself.


I'd bet it wouldn't be too hard to find a long list of posts showing his hypocrisy regarding whether or not Trump should be impeached due to the length of his term. Probably about how we should throw the book at some illegal immigrant who just wanted to work/live in America sor a BLM poster needs to rot in prison for a decade because they graffitied a police station. But apparently the guy who incited a riot that threatened our national government deserves a pass/isn't worth the bother. And notice Stormdash cleverly forgot that Trump has already said he'd run again and one thing impeaching can do is stop him from doing that legally.

[Stormdash]

I think we're well beyond caring what the fuck Trump or his merry band of domestic terrorists think.

Can you drill down a bit into whom you are categorizing as the "merry band of domestic terrorists" and what you would see done about them?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't' think it's surprising @Stormdash wouldn't find a competent attorney. Since he only seems to find partisan hacks like himself.

Talking to a message board of window-lickers who know as much law as they learn watching "The Good Wife" or some shit, that's pretty rich.

Note, this histrionic barrage I"ll be taking over the next hour or so is in response to a post in which I said Trump did something despicable for which he is no longer fit to be President, because... crazy people

[Edge-]

I guess they never heard of Brandenburg v Ohio among all those competent attorneys. Here's a very liberal attorney walking through it

Man, what's with all these "liberal lawyers" and looking at things in isolation and not in the full context? This shit didn't like, suddenly start on January 6, my dude.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you drill down a bit into whom you are categorizing as the "merry band of domestic terrorists" and what you would see done about them?

Everyone that participated in the "storming" of the US capitol, and those still planning more violence. What would I like to see done? Well, what's being done right now, law enforcement rounding them up and charging them while they continue investigations into more serious charges.

I just wish they'd treat folks like Q Shaman like they treated Muslim detainees that they refused to serve anything but pork to, or migrant detainees who received moldy/bug infested food. But naw, homeslice is special so he gets his 100% organic chicken nuggies so he's not emasculated by the testosterone blockers in the chemicals in our food.

[Noxx79]

I guess they never heard of Brandenburg v Ohio among all those competent attorneys. Here's a very liberal attorney walking through it

Well, what exactly did he tell them to do? Walk down there, he said. Show strength. Take back our country. Words that no doubt gave more than a few people listening the resolve to do what they then did. But it is important to note that he did not say go in the Capitol. He didn’t say get in there and break things, steal things, terrorize members of congress.

It is quite fairly argued that he didn’t say those things because he knew he didn’t have to, that he should have known and probably did know what a powder keg he was lighting with his words. No one can seriously suggest that Trump was unaware of the rhetoric online or the overzealousness of his supporters; he is much too online for that. But again, this is the First Amendment we are analyzing. Combine with the reasonable doubt requirement of a criminal conviction, and prosecuting Trump for his words that day becomes a very tall order, in my opinion.

This is not to say his words and actions — and those of Cruz and Hawley — weren’t repugnant. Contemptible. Deserving of any political and social consequences that may follow. But they probably managed to just tiptoe the line of criminal without crossing. It is reasonable to argue that their rhetoric is to blame for what occurred, but moral blame is not the same as criminal liability. Free speech is not absolute, but it is pretty darn near.

Here’s an argument for why Brandenburg doesn’t apply:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...rst-amendment/

TLDR: In Brandenburg, defendant used weasel words and said “if/then”. Basically calling for a non-specific action in an indefinite period of time.

Trump commanded a direct order of action, which was then immediately acted upon.

[wunksta]

I guess they never heard of Brandenburg v Ohio among all those competent attorneys. Here's a very liberal attorney walking through it

President Trump’s defenders are claiming that his incitement of the attack on the Capitol is protected by the First Amendment under the venerable case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and that he shouldn’t have been impeached for it or that he should be acquitted. But this claim is wrong. Even if Brandenburg applied to impeachments, which are different from criminal cases, the facts of that case are easily distinguished, and Trump’s conduct clearly meets the legal standard that Brandenburg set.

The case dates to 1964. At a Ku Klux Klan rally on June 18, after a film that contained some hateful speech about Black and Jewish people, the defendant gave a short speech at a farm in Hamilton, Ohio. The only arguably inciting part of the defendant’s speech was that “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the White, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”

In other words, the speaker simply said that if suppression continued for a sufficiently long period of time, his organization might have to take vengeance of some unspecified form at some unspecified future time. The defendant in Brandenburg also said that the KKK planned to march on Congress on July 4, but that was over two weeks later, and his speech didn’t indicate that he thought the suppression of White people would have continued for long enough by then that the July 4 march would be the right occasion for any possible revenge.

The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that the First Amendment protected “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Under that standard, the defendant’s speech was protected because there was no lawless action imminent — saying that if suppression continues, some form of unspecified vengeance might have to be taken at some unclear future time (at least more than two weeks away, but probably even later after that), and over 500 miles away, didn’t meet the standard.

In contrast, Trump riled up a mob a short walk from the Capitol right before Congress was scheduled to count the certified electoral votes. Both in his tweets calling on supporters to come to Washington and in his speech at the Washington rally, the president falsely stated that allowing Congress to count the certified electoral votes would “steal” the election from him and his followers. In his remarks and tweets in the days before, he said the goal was to “stop the steal,” that their protest would “be wild,” that “you can’t let [the steal] happen,” and that “they’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”

At his speech on the day of the attack, he told his supporters that they should march to the Capitol to “stop the steal,” which necessarily meant stopping Congress from counting the electoral votes. Mere chanting was hardly likely to stop the count, so this implied forcible action — especially coming after his attorney Rudolph Giuliani urged the crowd to use “trial by combat” to stop the steal at the same rally.

That implication was confirmed by Trump’s other statements in his speech. He stated that Republicans had been too “nice” and were instead “going to have to fight much harder.” He added that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” He further exhorted that “if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore” and that “they need to take back our country.” Although Trump tried to protect himself by stating that he was sure that the crowd would “peacefully” march to the Capitol, that does not alter the fact that he was inciting the crowd to forcibly stop Congress from counting the certified electoral votes once they got there.

Trump thus clearly incited lawless action (obstructing the operations of Congress is a crime) that was imminent (right after the speech, a short walk away). That he wanted to incite such lawless action is confirmed by reporting that for hours he watched the Capitol attack with pleasure and did not take any steps to stop it by calling out the National Guard or by urging his supporters to stand down.

It is also significant that Trump is the president. In antitrust law, conduct by a monopolist is often treated as illegally anticompetitive even when the same conduct by a non-monopolist would not be treated as such, because the monopolist’s greater power means their conduct is more likely to have anticompetitive effects. A parallel consideration ought to apply under the First Amendment because, compared to incitement by private actors, incitement by a president is much more likely to incite successful lawless action. Presidents have more power to organize large mobs. Further, presidents are in a position to protect their lawless actions by impeding law enforcement, such as failing to call out the National Guard, or by pardoning lawless actions after the fact. The prospect of such pardons may explain why the rioters felt such impunity that they photographed, live-streamed and videotaped their own lawless actions.

Thus, even if one wrongly thought Trump’s incitement would be protected under the First Amendment if he were a private citizen, his incitement should not be protected given his role as president. Indeed, it is not clear that Brandenburg applies to impeachment decisions. But even if it did, or if Trump was subject to a future criminal prosecution unrelated to impeachment, the Brandenburg standard should be lowered for incitements by presidents given their greater danger.

In any event, even if the Brandenburg standard applies with full force to Trump’s incitement, his incitement of imminent lawless action more than suffices to satisfy it. The argument to the contrary is based on misunderstanding of the law and the facts.

- Einer Elhauge, Petrie professor of law at Harvard Law School
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...rst-amendment/